Rouvinetis v Knoll [2013] NSWCA 24

Rouvinetis v Knoll [2013] NSWCA 24

The appeal was dismissed because neither the alleged apprehension of bias nor factual errors were established. The appellant's right to object to the trial judge on bias grounds was waived by failing to seek recusal or pursue relevant procedural applications, and the trial judge's findings regarding the use of reasonable force and liability were confirmed as proper. Leave for appeal, even if required, was not properly sought nor justified.

Parties
Appellant: Evangelos Rouvinetis; First Respondent: David Knoll; Second Respondent: Paliguard Pty Ltd; Third Respondent: Stephen Rothman; Fourth Respondent: Yair Miller; Fifth Respondent: Robin Margo; Sixth Respondent: Sam Zweie; Seventh Respondent: Uri Windt; Eighth Respondent: Graham de Vahl Davis; Ninth Respondent: Robert Goot; Tenth Respondent: Gerry Levy; Eleventh Respondent: Michael Marx; Twelfth Respondent: Peter Wertheim; Thirteenth Respondent: George Foster; Fourteenth Respondent: Alan Gold; Fifteenth Respondent: Jeremy Jones; Sixteenth Respondent: Roma Sheil; Seventeenth Respondent: Irving Wallach; Eighteenth Respondent: Susi Brieger; Nineteenth Respondent: Josie Lacey; Twentieth Respondent: Llona Lee; Twenty First Respondent: Ian Lacey; Twenty Second Respondent: Robin Schuck; Twenty Third Respondent: Jillian Segal
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Assault, Battery, Wrongful Imprisonment, Bias, Appeal Competency
Tort Law Civil Procedure Negligence Assault Battery Wrongful Imprisonment Bias Appeal Competency

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Evangelos Rouvinetis

Appellant

David Knoll

First Respondent

Paliguard Pty Ltd

Second Respondent

Stephen Rothman

Third Respondent

Yair Miller

Fourth Respondent

Robin Margo

Fifth Respondent

Sam Zweie

Sixth Respondent

Uri Windt

Seventh Respondent

Graham de Vahl Davis

Eighth Respondent

Robert Goot

Ninth Respondent

Gerry Levy

Tenth Respondent

Michael Marx

Eleventh Respondent

Peter Wertheim

Twelfth Respondent

George Foster

Thirteenth Respondent

Alan Gold

Fourteenth Respondent

Jeremy Jones

Fifteenth Respondent

Roma Sheil

Sixteenth Respondent

Irving Wallach

Seventeenth Respondent

Susi Brieger

Eighteenth Respondent

Josie Lacey

Nineteenth Respondent

Llona Lee

Twentieth Respondent

Ian Lacey

Twenty First Respondent

Robin Schuck

Twenty Second Respondent

Jillian Segal

Twenty Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appeal is competent given the compensation threshold
  2. 2 Whether there was a reasonable apprehension of bias by the trial judge
  3. 3 Whether excessive force was used in restraining the appellant

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because neither the alleged apprehension of bias nor factual errors were established. The appellant's right to object to the trial judge on bias grounds was waived by failing to seek recusal or pursue relevant procedural applications, and the trial judge's findings regarding the use of reasonable force and liability were confirmed as proper. Leave for appeal, even if required, was not properly sought nor justified.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Without resolving the objection to competency, dismiss the appeal.
  • Order the appellant to pay the respondent's costs in this Court, including, in the case of the Board, those relating to the objection to competency.